If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian Judge Forces Dad's into Retroactive Debt.
Yet another move in the wrong direction.... I love the wrote that says
it is all about money.... isn't that the truth. It took a J.D. to figure that out. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
C wrote: http://www.canada.com/national/natio...7-8eabe616ed6c This is another decision from a judge who has been testing his gavel on his own brainbucket. I'm not sure this would be a terrible decision, if it were to work both ways -- when a NCP's income goes DOWN, he should *immediately* have his CS obligation adjusted downwards, even if it takes a few months to work it through the courts. Thus, the state and/or the CP would have to pay him back for the money that was taken from him over and above his (retroactively lower) obligation. I'm not holding my breath for that one, although this decision does set a precedent. - Ron ^*^ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
C wrote: http://www.canada.com/national/natio...7-8eabe616ed6c This is another decision from a judge who has been testing his gavel on his own brainbucket. Good Lord... This bit made me laugh -- capitalization mine: "Payers of child support have historically been treated with UNUSUAL LENIENCY by the law -- and children have paid the price," Judge Paperny wrote. "In the post-guidelines regime, where it is clear that EACH PARENT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY HIS OR HER FAIR SHARE and the support of the children is to be considered primary, there is, in any event, no legitimate public policy supporting leniency for a non-paying parent." - Ron ^*^ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"J" wrote in message ups.com... Yet another move in the wrong direction.... I love the wrote that says it is all about money.... isn't that the truth. It took a J.D. to figure that out. If the baboons in black robes can rule CS orders should go up every time a CS payer's income increases retroactive to the pay increase date, then they will rule every CS order must be increased retroactively every time the CS guidelines are increased. This change practically requires annual CS order increases as opposed to every 2-3 years. A person working on commission could have their CS order change every month. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"C" wrote in message .. . http://www.canada.com/national/natio...=7e69ee01-cec0 -465d-b537-8eabe616ed6c This is another decision from a judge who has been testing his gavel on his own brainbucket. C Sooner or later, this kind of decision surely must have an impact on the willingness of young men to get married and have children. There's the usual nonsense from the judges about "noncustodial parents" and "his or her" but anyone who has a grain of commonsense knows that so-called "child support" -- in Canada and elsewhere -- is money that fathers pay mothers. This decision represents an additional risk for men who marry and become fathers, and a further disincentive for any man to put himself in a situation where he can be exposed to this kind of risk. For decades now, the benefits to men from marriage and families have been steadily reduced, and the risks have been steadily enlarged. Now, the game's not worth the candle, and that realization must be spreading among men. What happens after the knowledge of the situation becomes general, I don't know, but I doubt whether it will be to the advantage of women. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using
surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will not like it but what do they expect? Paula |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
PBu7434922 wrote: I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will not like it but what do they expect? Hey, that's a good idea! I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good advice. - Ron ^*^ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:P2nOd.83740$Tf5.64899@lakeread03... PBu7434922 wrote: I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will not like it but what do they expect? Hey, that's a good idea! I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good advice. Why not just adopt? There are loads of kids in need of a good home. - Ron ^*^ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:P2nOd.83740$Tf5.64899@lakeread03... PBu7434922 wrote: I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will not like it but what do they expect? Hey, that's a good idea! I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good advice. Why not just adopt? There are loads of kids in need of a good home. I see your point, but there is something special about a child that is "your own". Counting the days until the feminists start lobbying against cloning because men start looking into having their own kids that way... - Ron ^*^ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:ywwOd.106217$Jk5.9668@lakeread01... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:P2nOd.83740$Tf5.64899@lakeread03... PBu7434922 wrote: I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will not like it but what do they expect? Hey, that's a good idea! I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good advice. Why not just adopt? There are loads of kids in need of a good home. I see your point, but there is something special about a child that is "your own". In my family, there are 7 grandchildren - 5 are adopted, and I'd defy anyone to tell us which one(s) aren't "our own". If you feel there's a difference, by all means, don't adopt. Counting the days until the feminists start lobbying against cloning because men start looking into having their own kids that way... - Ron ^*^ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case | Fern5827 | Spanking | 8 | October 4th 05 03:43 AM |
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads | Don | Child Support | 8 | August 12th 04 07:17 AM |
Recognizing Good Dads | Gini52 | Child Support | 12 | June 1st 04 10:06 AM |
A judge in Britain finds out for himself | Kenneth S. | Child Support | 24 | May 20th 04 01:42 AM |
child support laws | ncimi | Child Support | 30 | January 10th 04 09:57 PM |